Pages

Thursday, November 30, 2006

It's all relative—relatively speaking

I get the idea that you *don't* understand the point about subjectivity here at all.

***END-QUOTE***

Objectivity, or the lack thereof, is irrelevant to the definition of an internal critique.

And it’s equally irrelevant to the definition of an external critique.

***QUOTE***

Do we suppose the Mormons look at that and say 'Ya know, we'd never thought of that. You've pretty much demolished Mormonism, there, Chuck!'? I get the sense from "Chuck" that he thinks his critique is something like that. And to him, I'm sure it is. But to the Mormon, it just looks ignorant and foolish.

***END-QUOTE***

Who are you debating—me or Chuck?

For the record, I’ve done a critique of Hugh Nibley, who was the leading Mormon apologist of his generation.

And, of course, there’s a lot of fine countercult material on Mormonism by Blomberg and others.

This thread is not a critique of Mormonism. I never said I was making a case against Mormonism in this thread. Mormonism was cited as a counterexample by others.

Rather, this thread is about the degree to which religious experience is, or is not, a valid appeal.

I can’t miss a target I was never aiming at in the first place.

***QUOTE***

When you ask, "Is his testimony corroborated?", you're begging the central question of *who* decides what constitutes "corroborated" or not. Clearly, from your posts, you feel entitled to pronounce judgment on this question, and any others. Your arguments are compelling, because you say so, and your critics? Their arguments are lame because you say so.

So maybe you can tell me *who* determines, for example, what the *right* worldview is to "cohere with" in your statement above. Are you assuming we *start* with your worldview in judging Mormon's claims?

***END-QUOTE***

A couple of issues:

i) There are general criteria for assessing testimonial claims. Not all of the criteria are equally applicable to every individual case. That depends on the precise nature of the testimony. Testimony is not all of a kind.

ii) Your question is irrelevant to the distinction between an internal critique and an external critique. An individual value-judgment will be rendered in either case. Sorry you’re such a muddled thinker.

I’m no more judgmental that you are when you indulge in YEC-bashing.

iii) The question of “who” gets to decide is not the “central” question. That’s just another one of your irrelevancies. Anyone is free to render his own value judgment.

But you yourself obviously done regard all positions as equally valid. You don’t regard YEC as just as good as TE.

You’re one of those schizophrenic individuals who likes to intone relativist rhetoric in an absolutist tone of voice.

***QUOTE***

You're indulging yourself, at the expense of others, to the baseline worldview, what you call "our worldview". But that worldview is just as subjective as a Mormon's or an atheists (with an atheist's being arguably *less* subjective). "Chuck Liddell" responds with the virgin birth question, and then *really* wants an answer from Joe Mormon, as if he thinks Mormons are caught in their own trap! Apparently, he's so stuck in thinking that everyone else's arguments are subordinated to *his* paradigm, that he doesn't suspect that Mormons might have an internal rationale that resolves this.

***END-QUOTE***

Notice how judgmental Touchstone is when it comes to Chuck. He’s far more judgmental of Chuck than he is of Joe Mormon.

Touchstone is a very judgmental relativist.

BTW, it wouldn’t hurt him to define his terms instead of yelling “subjective” at every turn.

***QUOTE***

That's just a lot of self-flattery, isn't it? Ask a Mormon if that's a "gotcha" and he will laugh just like Paul Manata laughs when Exapologist points to an eschatological "gotcha" in Paul's framework.

Gotcha's are in the eye of the beholder. "Victorious" arguments are in the eye of the reader. You're free to accept or deny others claims as you see fit, as am I. I don't rule out all such experiential claims, nor do I accept them all at face value.

***END-QUOTE***

Are you debating me or Manata?

***QUOTE***

But I don't make pretenses to having some right to decide what is objectively "true" that supercedes a Mormon's or an atheist's, or another Christians.

***END-QUOTE***

Oh, I see. And is it objectively true that you “don't make pretenses to having some right to decide what is objectively ‘true’"?

And if it’s not objectively true that you “don't make pretenses to having some right to decide what is objectively ‘true’,” then we can safely ignore your disclaimer.

Indeed, since you “don't make pretenses to having some right to decide what is objectively ‘true’,” then we can safely ignore all your arguments for evolution.

Thanks for refuting yourself. That’s a real timesaver.

***QUOTE***

Not at all. You can accept or reject any testimony you want. Just don't pretend that *your* rejections are binding on *them*.

***END-QUOTE***

You have a love affair with straw man arguments. Did I “pretend” that my rejections are “binding” on a second party?

4 comments:

Steve said:Notice how judgmental Touchstone is when it comes to Chuck. He’s far more judgmental of Chuck than he is of Joe Mormon.

Touchstone is a very judgmental relativist.

I'm quite sure my theology would line up neatly with Chuck Liddell's, or yours for that matter, compared to the theology of Joe Mormon. My point in bringing in this hypothetical Joe Mormon isn't to support his theology, or diminish Chuck's. Rather it's just a way of showing the hypocrisy of saying: Ha! See, I've disproved the Mormons!

By the measure Chuck uses, and which you use, your faith beliefs would be a smoking hole in the ground, if you granted your critics the right to use the measure you use on others.

Joe Mormon is just a mnemonic for the subjective claims which we aren't able to properly assess. As you said yourself, such experiences aren't transportable from one person to another. If that's the case, how would you or Chuck deny Joe Mormon's revelation? He says he sees the snow, and you're claiming there's no snow, because you can't see any.

I urge that we acknowledge the obvious: we don't have an objective way of evaluating claims to experiences like divine revelation. I don't suppose the Holy Spirit *is* validating the Mormon Prayer any more than Chuck or you do. The difference is, I acknowledge that my critique is purely subjective.

Subjective doesn't mean it's "wrong" or "bad". I believe my assessments in that case are accurate *and* subjective. I don't seek the mantle of objective conclusions for what I assert subjectively.

BTW, it wouldn’t hurt him to define his terms instead of yelling “subjective” at every turn.

What terms am I using that have you confused Steve? I'm happy to clarify, if I can.

Really underscores what I've been trying to point out. This isn't math. We don't have an agreed on set of axioms and a joint propositional calculus that will produce the same deductive conclusions all around.

The fact that this occurs to you as a point to make is the very problem I'm trying to identify here.

If were counting in base 8, is this still true:

7+5=12

I think that under base 8 math the above would be rejected as false. If you can understand why that would be , then we are making progress.

That's as close as I can come in salvaging that, if you're committed to thinking this like math.

As for admitting defeat, it doesn't matter to me if they shut up and ignore you or write a book to rebut your arguments. I can't see what bearing that has on this at all. If you're determined to pronounce victory for yourself from the start, it seems like a pointless exercise from the Mormon point of view, right?

I mean, if divine revelation isn't powerful enough, what else is there?